New intel on the San Bernardino killers

December 28, 2015

Writer

Filling in on The Glenn Beck Program today, Doc Thompson and Skip LaCombe outlined new details that have emerged about the San Bernardino terrorists, including their ties to a local mosque and the real plan they were hoping to execute in California.

The FBI has questioned Roshan Zamir Abbassi, the cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Farook worshipped, and his claims that he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. However, the evidence casts doubt on this story.

Phone records show a flurry of communication with Farook, including at least 38 text messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

"Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks?" questioned Skip. "I mean, if that's the case . . . I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than four messages tops."

Doc was more generous, thinking six messages would do the trick.

"You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right?" Doc posed. "Okay, just to confirm one more time how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool, too? Okay. That's like six messages."

More troubling, though, was a plan revealed by Farook's former neighbor who has since been arrested for purchasing weapons used in the deadly San Bernardino attack.

"Their plan---at least one of their plans---was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway . . . that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway," Doc explained. "Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway."

The plan also included Farook walking among the cars and shooting people. The neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway as a sniper to take out law enforcement, security or emergency crews.

This type of plan is shocking and very different from a 9/11 style attack. It's personal and up close, and should be a wake up call for every American.

Listen to the exchange below beginning around 48:28:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

DOC: By the way, new information on the San Bernardino terrorists. Apparently, the spokesman/cleric for the San Bernardino mosque where Farook, the husband would worship, do you remember when he was supposedly married there and there was some question about that. And he worshiped there. And right after this happened, the mosque was like, "Whoa whoa, we don't know if he was married here." And then they distanced themselves. "We don't know. He could have come here. But we're not part of that." And I get that.

Hey, if you're Muslim in America and you're not causing any problems, you're an American, you just want to live your life and be left alone, yeah, this stuff is pretty annoying when everybody wants to prented or cast you in the light that you're a terrorist as well. So I understand if a mosque is going, hey, that's not us. We don't want any trouble.

I get that. The problem is, the feds have uncovered some things that seem like the mosque knew him pretty well. It seems like -- you know what, I'm going to let you be the judge. I'm going to present you some information and you tell me if, you know, maybe you think they kind of knew each other.

SKIP: All right.

DOC: Because the spokesman said he barely knew Farook. In fact, when he was talking to reporters, he didn't know them better than a lot of the reporters in the room.

So the feds say that the mosque is just 5 miles from the attack site. So it's pretty close and he used to go there.

SKIP: That in itself is probably not too much.

DOC: They have a record of them being married there.

SKIP: Okay.

DOC: That's a little bit more.

SKIP: But I'm sure there's a lot of weddings there.

DOC: You don't necessarily know everybody. Farook was supposedly there all the time. He had been going to pray there at least three to four times a week for two years.

SKIP: Okay. Now you're starting to get a little more familiarity with him.

DOC: Hey, that's that guy that's always here praying. But there's probably a lot of other people praying. Still though, you're adding this up, it's looking kind of rough for them. But still --

SKIP: No like smoking gun yet though.

DOC: This cleric exchanged at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June.

SKIP: Okay. See, that right there, that piece right there, that's going to be damning.

DOC: Skip, it's only 38 messages in two weeks.

SKIP: No, see, any person I've exchanged 30-some-odd messages with over --

DOC: That's not even 20 messages a week. I mean, what is that? Three messages a day if you average it out.

SKIP: Yeah, that's going to be at least a little more familiarity.

DOC: You're telling me that with anybody you've exchanged 38 messages over a two-week span -- text messages with, you know them pretty well?

SKIP: A little more familiarity, I'm going to go ahead and say. I know them pretty well.

DOC: By the way, during this span, this was during the same time period that the attack happened in Chattanooga. The terrorist attack. What's the matter?

SKIP: Those types of attacks. You'll probably be uber aware of correspondence and people you're corresponding with. Particularly in a mosque situation. Because they deal with these types of fears of profiling or being associated with -- yeah, you'll probably have a little extra guard.

DOC: You're thinking that looks bad for him. So during a two-week period in June that was during the time of the attack, the terrorist attack in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which was a Muslim extremist, this spokesperson from the mosque exchanged at least 38 text messages with Farook.

SKIP: Now, what were the texts? OMG. LOL. You see this? WTF. Or what?

DOC: They have not released. I don't know if the feds have the information yet. Theoretically, they would be able to see what the texts were. I have not seen them yet.

SKIP: Of course they would.

DOC: But the cleric claims they were merely discussing food donations for the mosque.

SKIP: Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks? I mean, if that's the case you truly are just trying to get information on, hey, where can I drop off the canned goods? I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than --

DOC: Tuesday at 4:00 here at the mosque. Right?

SKIP: I'll give you four messages tops on that.

DOC: You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right, that's what you said? Okay. Just to confirm one more time -- how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool too? Okay. That's like six messages.

SKIP: Hey, listen, I know you said canned goods, but can I bring some of those pouched goods? Pouched tuna. I know they're not canned though. Is that okay?

DOC: Something like that. Okay. That's like eight messages. What about the other 30?

Now, here's the thing, they're not claiming these messages were part of the terrorist attack at this moment. In other words, they're not pointing the finger at the cleric going, a-ha! You were in on the terrorist attack. They aren't doing that yet.

SKIP: I think they're just trying to prove that they did in fact have more of a relationship than he's trying to --

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So 38 messages, even if it's about food donations, you had a relationship with this person. I mean, if you were the cleric and this guy is like -- I'm getting another message from him about the food donations. This is like 14. Hey, Farook is texting me again, Skip. Just look at this. I would be going to Skip. Look at this. How many times do I have to tell him it's canned goods? This is the eighteenth message. Look at this. I would be bitching to you. Right?

SKIP: Yeah. But then again, you would remember that and hold that as well. I mean, yeah, we exchanged blah, blah. You wouldn't have to come out and say, yeah, we were best friends.

DOC: Right.

SKIP: I would be like, yeah, I knew the guy. He was a nut.

DOC: He wouldn't leave me the hell alone. I told him about the canned goods.

SKIP: If anything, that could work in your favor. Yeah, I know him. He was a jackass.

DOC: There's a little more information. This cleric said he didn't know Farook's wife at all. He said he barely knew Farook. Didn't know his wife at all.

There's a long-time member of the mosque.

SKIP: I'm sorry, what's that name again?

DOC: (foreign language). I don't know if that's a man or a woman. Claimed that they prayed shoulder to shoulder with Farook and his wife. And went to the couple's wedding last year at the mosque.

So that would indicate that this cleric knew Farook's wife. Didn't know her at all.

SKIP: At least some familiarity.

DOC: Right? So then you have to ask yourself: Why are you denying this?

I understand that you know people -- I understand being a little paranoid if you think everyone is looking at you even if you're not a terrorist and you happen to be Muslim. I understand that you're -- okay. They all think I'm a terrorist here. So I don't want to do anything. So let me just say I didn't know the guy.

But aren't you smart enough to realize that looks even worse for you instead of being honest and saying, listen. It's one thing to downplay it. But if you exchanged messages like that, there's no downplaying it. People are going to know.

SKIP: No, it just makes you look guilty.

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So let's say the cleric in this mosque had some sort of a relationship with Farook, but not much of one. He could have said, yeah, he worshiped here. I knew him a little bit. They had their wedding here. You know, we had exchanged messages. He tried to come up with some food donations. Whatever. I didn't know him well. I mean, there are many people that come to this mosque that I have a similar relationship with. You know, we didn't see each other outside of the mosque or anything like that. Then I would go, okay. That makes sense. But when you start going, nope. I didn't know his wife at all.

SKIP: Who? Farook.

DOC: Oh, the guy with the canned goods. Right? I mean, at some point it just makes you look guilty.

SKIP: It makes you look guilty, yeah.

DOC: That's not going to be good for him there. You have to wonder, was anybody else a part of this? You know just before we were off for break, so prior to last week, the neighbor -- they finally arrested the neighbor, the one who bought the two long guns and then gave them to Farook, who was planning a terrorist attack with him in 2011 and '12.

SKIP: I would have a hard time believing that. I mean, because of that, because of this neighbor, they were planning HEP an attack on a highway. I mean, that clearly proves to me, I think, that Farook spoke about this stuff with some regularity. So I would have to think, I would be surprised to find out that nobody else in that mosque, that not a single other person knew that they had something planned.

DOC: Interesting thing about this friend, the former neighbor who has been arrested now. He claimed that they had this terrorist plan. The plan they were working on is shocking. And this is the thing that should really frighten all Americans. I'm not somebody that is given into hysterics. I think we have to live our lives or the terrorists win. But it should be shocking when you hear what they were planning.

Their plan, at least one of their plans, was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway. Now, I don't know if it was a particular stretch that they had already planned out for. But they were looking for at least a stretch of highway that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway. Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway. And, again, you wouldn't be able to get off once traffic started backing up.

At that point, Farook was going to walk among the cars and start shooting people in their cars or if they fled. The crazy neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway and began -- begin sniping law enforcement or security or safety or emergency crews as they tried to help people.

This was their plan. Now, why that should be shocking, of course, that's a terrorist attack, so it should be shocking in itself. But when you look and realize that these are the new terrorists many America. Many people, I think including even the president and maybe even George W. Bush before he left office, and many people that are advising them, still believe that terrorism in America is going to come in the form of a plane flying into a building or something similar.

Remember, prior to 9/11, the only fear you had of somebody taking an aircraft or blowing up or terrorism on an aircraft was it being hijacked because nobody would kill themselves. Or planting a bomb on a plane, but they wouldn't get on because no one would kill themselves. That was our thinking.

They would check and as long as everybody got on that planted luggage on the plane, you were good. And then we were like, oh, okay. Now I see that people will actually kill themselves too. Got it. Okay. We were behind.

SKIP: Totally changed the game.

DOC: Changed the game. Well, now we've got a new plan here. Look at the multiple terrorist attacks in France. Look at the Boston bombing. Look at San Bernardino. What do these attacks have in common? They plan a terrorist attack, using explosives, guns, whatever they can find, they don't stick around to be shot or killed. Even if they're willing to die for their cause and will likely die for their cause. They want to cause as much havoc and terror as possible. As much death and destruction. So what do they do? They flee causing more death and destruction. This is the new plan, and we have to wise up. They're willing to die for their cause, but it looks more like this than planes into buildings.

Featured Image: Dar-Al-Uloom Al-Islamia of America mosque in Muscoy, a suburb of San Bernardino.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Glenn's Show Prep